Tobacco Money in California Politics (2009-2010 Election Cycle)

8/6/2019 Tobacco Money in California Politics (2009-2010 Election Cycle)

1/26

Tobacco Money in California PoliticsCampaign Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures o Tobacco Interests

Report or the 2009-2010 Election Cycle


2/26

y

g

g

g

July 2011

This report was produced by the Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing (the Center), a project of theAmerican Lung Association in California, funded by the California Department of Public Health, Tobacco Control

Program. Every two years, the Center produces a comprehensive report on the total campaign contributionsand lobbying expenditures by tobacco interests for the preceding two-year election cycle. In addition,the Center produces quarterly reports on lobbying and campaign contributions as this information is ledwith the California Secretary of State. This report and all past reports are available on the Centers websiteat www.Center4TobaccoPolicy.org/tobaccomoney. A searchable database of tobacco interests campaigncontributions to legislators is available at www.Center4TobaccoPolicy.org/database.

The Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing American Lung Association in California1029 J Street, Suite 450 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 554.5864 Fax: (916) 442.8585 www.Center4TobaccoPolicy.org


3/26

ContentsI. Executive Summary ...............................................................................1

II. Background Information and Sources ...................................................3

III. Contributions to State Legislators and Candidates ...............................5

IV. Contributions to Constitutional Ofcers...............................................12

V. Contributions to Political Committees .................................................13

VI. Historical Campaign Contributions ......................................................15

VII. Lobbying Expenditures and Legislation Lobbied .................................16

VIII. Historical Lobbying Expenditures ........................................................19

IX. Conclusion ...........................................................................................20

Tables and Graphs Table 1: Contributions to Assembly Members from Tobacco Interests

(January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010) ..............................................6

Table 2: Contributions to State Senators from Tobacco Interests(January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010) ..............................................8

Table 3: Contributions to New Members of the Legislature fromTobacco Interests (January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010) .................9

Graph 1: Campaign Contributions to Legislators from Tobacco Interests(January 1, 2005 December 31, 2010) ............................................10

Table 4: Contributions to Candidates Who Were Not Elected to theLegislature from Tobacco Interests(January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010) ............................................10

Graph 2: Number of Legislators and Candidates Who AcceptedContributions by Tobacco Interests

(January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010) ............................................11 Graph 3: Average Contribution Amount to Each Legislator or Candidate

by Tobacco Interests (January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010) ..........11

Table 5:Contributions to Constitutional Ofcers and Candidates fromTobacco Interests (January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010) ...............12

Table 6: Contributions to Political Committees from Tobacco Interests(January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010) ............................................14

Table 7: Historical Contributions from Tobacco Interests(January 1, 2001 December 31, 2010) ............................................15

Graph 4: Total Campaign Contributions of Tobacco Interests(January 1, 2001 December 31, 2010) ............................................15

Table 8: Lobbying Expenditures and Legislation Lobbied by TobaccoInterests (January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010)..............................16

Graph 5: Percent of Total Lobbying Expenditures by Tobacco Interests(January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010) ............................................18

Table 9: Historical Lobbying Expenditures of Tobacco Interests(January 1, 2001 December 31, 2010) ............................................19

Graph 6: Total Lobbying Expenditures of Tobacco Interests(January 1, 2001 December 31, 2010) ............................................19


4/26


5/26

Executive Summary

Tobacco Money in California Politics reects thatCalifornia remains at the forefront of the battlebetween public health and the tobacco industry.

A well-organized campaign led by the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health, Tobacco ControlProgram, local health departments, the AmericanLung Association in California, American Cancer

Society and American Heart Association has led toenormous changes in social norms about tobaccouse and many important public health victories.However, the tobacco industry continues to wageaggressive marketing and promotional campaignsto attract new youth smokers and to keep peopleaddicted to their deadly products. Additionally, thiswell-funded industry still makes a concerted effort tobuy inuence at the state capitol.

While Californias Tobacco Control Program savedthe state $86 billion in health care costs from 1989 to2004, tobacco use still costs the state $18.1 billion inhealth care costs and lost productivity each year.1,2

And while there has been a 50 percent decrease inadult smoking prevalence since 1988, there are still3.6 million people who smoke in the state.3,4 Thisbattle to save lives and money is especially evidentin the public policy arena. When there are bills orballot initiatives that aim to reduce tobacco use, thetobacco industry ghts back with its vast nancialresources, through campaign contributions andlobbying. Tobacco Money in California Politics detailscampaign contributions and lobbying expendituresof tobacco interests during the two-year election

cycle from January 1, 2009 through December 31,2010. This report also provides historical data ontobacco industry spending over the last decade.

Campaign ContributionsDuring the 2009-2010 election cycle, the nationstwo largest tobacco manufacturers (Philip MorrisUSA Inc. and Reynolds American Inc.) and thetobacco distributors industry (California Distributors

Association) contributed more than $6.5 million incampaign contributions to political committees,candidates and members of the California Legislatureand state constitutional ofces. This represents an

increase of more than $4.5 million from the previous2007-2008 election cycle.

For the November 2010 general election, Philip MorrisUSA Inc. contributed more than $3.85 million (morethan 60 percent of the total campaign contributionsof all tobacco interests) to political committeesthat were working to defeat Proposition 25 andpass Proposition 26. Both ballot measures passed;Proposition 25 changes the vote requirement for

passing a state budget from a two-thirds vote to asimple majority and Proposition 26 reclassies manytypes of fees as taxes, subjecting them to a two-thirds vote requirement. As a result of the passage ofProposition 26, an emerging tobacco control policythat looks to enact mitigation fees on cigarettesappears to be severely hampered. Cigarette mitigationfees are designed to increase revenues to pay forthe damage caused by cigarettes, thus increasingthe price of cigarettes and impacting a reduction inuse. Mitigations fees, such as that adopted by SanFrancisco, will now be more difcult to adopt becauseof the increased vote requirement.

In the May 2009 special election, Philip Morris USAInc. and Reynolds American Inc. contributed a totalof $625,000 to a political committee in support ofPropositions 1A through 1F. If passed, these ballotmeasures would have extended tax increases thatwould have generated revenues for the state generalfund and redirected Proposition 10 tobacco taxrevenues to other purposes.

Tobacco interests made more than $600,000in contributions to members of the legislature,

constitutional ofcers and candidates for theseofces in the 2009-2010 election cycle. Of the 122state legislators (more than 120 legislative seats, dueto vacancies and special elections), tobacco interestsmade campaign contributions to 59 members ofthe legislature, or 48 percent of the members. Thisamount of giving is consistent with the previouselection cycle. During the 2007-2008 election cycle,tobacco interests gave slightly less than $600,000to 60 members of the legislature. There were a totalof 31 new members of the legislature elected inNovember 2010 (not counting those who switchedhouses) and tobacco interests made contributions

to 12 of these new members. Tobacco interestsalso made campaign contributions to both of themajor candidates for Governor in the November2010 election.

1 Lightwood JM, Dinno A, ,Glantz SA. Effect of Tobacco Control Program on Personal Health Care Expenditures. PLos Medicine 2008.Volume 5, Issue 8, e178. August 2008.

2 Smoking-Attributable Mortalit y, Morbidity, and Economic Costs (SAMMEC). Available at http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/statesystem/.

3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2010.

4 California Department of Public Health. California Student Tobacco Survey 2010.


6/262

y

g

g

g

LobbyingThe tobacco interests spent $2.76 million on lobbyingduring the 2009-2010 election cycle, a slight increaseover the $2.66 spent by tobacco interests in theprevious 2007-2008 election cycle. Tobacco interestslobbied 16 different bills, including legislation toincrease the tobacco tax, make changes to the state

tobacco retailer license law and regulate the sale ofelectronic cigarettes.

Philip Morris USA Inc. spent $1.91 million on lobbyingin this two-year period, more than the company hasspent in any other two-year period this decade. The

main reason for this increase in spending wasthe appearance of several tobacco-related bills,including those that would have increased the statestobacco tax. During the second quarter of 2009 (Aprilthrough June), Philip Morris USA Inc. spent morethan $750,000 on lobbying, which is $200,000 more

than the company spent during any other quarterduring the past 20 years of lobbying. During thosethree months, the legislature voted on two budgetbills that contained a tobacco tax increase andanother tobacco tax bill that was moving forward inthe legislative process.


7/26

Background Inormation and Sources

Tobacco InterestsTobacco interests in this report are representedby cigarette manufacturers, smokeless tobaccocompanies and tobacco distributors that lobby andmake campaign contributions to members of theCalifornia Legislature. The four tobacco intereststhat lobbied and/or made contributions during this

election cycle are Philip Morris USA Inc., RJ ReynoldsTobacco Company, and US Smokeless TobaccoCompany and the California Distributors Association,which represents major tobacco wholesalers anddistributors. The historical tables in this report includethree other tobacco interests that either no longerlobby and make contributions to the legislature orhave since merged with other tobacco companies.These past tobacco interests are Lorillard TobaccoCompany, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Companyand the Smokeless Tobacco Council.

Campaign ContributionsThese tobacco interests, like other interest groups, arerequired by law to submit statements to the Secretaryof State that detail campaign contributions twiceannually and more often in election years. Campaigncontributions include all monetary as well as non-monetary contributions, such as donated goodsor services. The information in Tobacco Money inCalifornia Politics comes from the four semi-annualreports that cover the period from January 1, 2009through December 31, 2010.

All candidates for legislative ofce have a limit to

the amount of contributions they can accept fromone company or interest group per election, which isadjusted for each election cycle. For the 2009-2010election cycle, candidates were limited to acceptinga maximum of $3,900 from one company or interestgroup for each election. The June 2010 primary, theNovember 2010 general and any special electionare considered separate elections, meaning that acandidate could receive more than $3,900 from onecompany during this two year reporting cycle. Thecontributions limit to constitutional ofces (other thanGovernor) was $6,500 per election and for Governorthe limit was $25,900.

Philip Morris USA Inc. led its campaign contributionsreports under its own name during this electioncycle. Prior to 2007, Philip Morris USA Inc. led itsreport of campaign contributions under the name

Altria Group Inc.s Afliates, which also includedKraft Foods Global, Inc. at that time. The historicalcampaign contributions gures in this report contain

all Altria Group Inc.s Afliates contributions. In 2007,Kraft Foods Global, Inc. was spun off from AltriaGroup Inc.s Afliates and stopped ling its campaigncontributions under the Altria Group Inc.s Afliatesname. In January 2009, the US Smokeless TobaccoCompany was acquired by Altria and did not le anycampaign contributions report during this electioncycle. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company led under thename Reynolds American Inc.

Lobbying ExpendituresThese tobacco interests hire lobbyists and are required

to submit quarterly reports to the Secretary of Statedetailing the bills or regulations that were lobbiedduring that quarter and how much money was spenton payments to lobbying rms and activity expenses.These expenses include gifts, honoraria, consultingfees and salaries. Each quarter covers three monthsout of the calendar year (January through March, Aprilthrough June, July through September, and Octoberthrough December) making a total of eight quartersfor the two-year reporting period. The information inTobacco Money in California Politicscomes fromthe eight quarterly reports that cover the period fromJanuary 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. Philip

Morris USA Inc. led its lobbying reports under thename Altria Client Services Inc. and its Afliates. RJReynolds Tobacco Company led its lobbying reportsunder the names Reynolds American Inc. and RAIServices Company and its Afliates. In January 2009,the US Smokeless Tobacco Company was acquiredby Altria. The US Smokeless Tobacco Company ledits lobbying reports under the name UST Public AffairsInc. and terminated lobbying in December 2009.


8/26

y

g

g

g

SourcesThe Secretary of States website,http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov, contains a searchabledatabase with all of the gures that are found in thisreport. While the information in this report attemptsto convey accurate campaign nance and lobbyingdata, it is important to note that these records aresubject to amendment by donors and data is subjectto change. The California Fair Political Practices

Commission has information on its websiteabout the reporting requirements for campaigncontributions and lobbying expenditures available at:www.fppc.ca.gov.

In addition to this report, the Center maintainsan online database of campaign contributions tolegislators. This database is available at:www.Center4TobaccoPolicy.org/database andcontains campaign contribution information forall current and past legislators from 2001 to thepresent. Users can search campaign contributionsinformation by legislators name, legislative district

and county.

4
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/http://www.fppc.ca.gov/


9/26

Contributions to State Legislators and Candidates

During the 2009-2010 election cycle, tobacco interestsmade more than $575,000 in campaign contributionsto current Assembly Members and Senators and tocandidates running for those ofces. Out of the 122legislators (more than 120 due to vacancies andspecial elections) who served at some point duringthe 2009-2010 legislative session, 59 members (48

percent) accepted campaign contributions fromtobacco interests. This is consistent with previouselection cycles, as 61 legislators (50 percent)accepted tobacco interests contributions in the2007-2008 election cycle and 63 (52 percent) did soin the 2005-2006 election cycle (see Graph 1).

Table 1 shows campaign contributions from tobaccointerests to Assembly Members during the entire2009-2010 election cycle. All 80 seats in the Assemblywere contested in the November 2010 election.Nearly half of the Assembly Members listed on thistable (38 out of 80) accepted campaign contributionsfrom tobacco interests. This is a slight decrease fromthe 2007-2008 election cycle when 43 AssemblyMembers accepted tobacco interests contributions.The average amount of contributions for the 38members accepting contributions was $8,284 withtotals per member ranging from $1,000 to $15,600and with 14 Assembly Members accepting more than$10,000 in contributions.

Table 2 shows campaign contributions from tobaccointerests to Senators during the 2009-2010 electioncycle. Nearly half of the Senators listed on this table

(20 out of 41) accepted campaign contributions fromtobacco interests. This is a slight increase from the17 senators who accepted such contributions duringthe 2007-2008 election cycle. The average amount ofcontributions for the 20 Senators accepting tobaccointerests contributions was $8,120 with totals permember ranging from $1,000 to $21,100 and withseven members accepting more than $10,000 incontributions.

There were a total of 38 individuals elected to new Assembly and Senate seats in November 2010for the 2011-2012 legislative session, but seven of

these members were serving in the other house atthe time of their election. The contributions data forthese seven members are already shown in Table 1and Table 2. The campaign contributions data for theother 31 new members is shown inTable 3. Of thesenew members, 12 out of 31, or 39 percent, acceptedcampaign contributions from tobacco interests. Thisis a decrease from the rate for new members two yearsago, which was 14 out of 31 members or 45 percent.

The average amount of the campaign contributionsaccepted by new members of the legislature is smallerthan that for current members. The average amountof contributions for new members of the legislaturewas $5,238 and only one new member acceptedmore than $10,000 in contributions.

Some candidates who accepted tobacco interestscampaign contributions were unsuccessful in theirefforts to get elected to the legislature. Table 4 showsthe ten individuals who took contributions duringthis election cycle but did not win election to thelegislature.

Graph 2 and Graph 3 examine campaign contributionsto legislators and candidates by tobacco interest. Ofthe $575,000 in campaign contributions to legislatorsand candidates for the 2009-2010 election cycle,more than half of the monetary amount was made byPhilip Morris USA Inc. However, Reynolds American

Inc. made contributions to roughly the same numberof legislators and candidates as Philip Morris.Reynolds American Inc. made contributions to 58different legislators or candidates for an average of$3,405 per individual. Philip Morris USA Inc. madecontributions to 59 different legislators or candidatesfor an average of $5,868 per individual. The CaliforniaDistributors Association contributed to the fewestlegislators and candidates (19) and had the lowestaverage per individual ($1,750).

Note: Several legislators who served during the2009-2010 legislative session were elected to otherofces at some point in the session. All of the tablesin this report list the member in the last legislative orconstitutional ofce that they held during the legislativesession. For example, a member who started in the

Assembly but was elected to the Senate in a specialelection would appear on Table 2 for the Senate or amember who started in the Senate but nished as aconstitutional ofcer would appear in Table 5. All ofthese changes are notated with footnotes throughoutthe tables.


10/266

y

g

g

g

6

Table 1: Contributions to Assembly Members rom Tobacco Interests

(January 1, 2009 December 31, 2010)

Party/

District Assembly Member Philip Morris USA Inc.

Reynolds American Inc.

(R.J. Reynolds Tobacco

Company)

Caliornia Distributors

Association PAC Totals

R-59 Adams, Anthony $3,900 $1,500 - $5,400

D-13 Ammiano, Tom - - - -

R-77 Anderson, Joel $3,900 $3,000 $1,500 $8,400D-31 Arambula, Juan - - - -

D-47 Bass, Karen - - - -

D-24 Beall, Jim Jr. - - - -

R-26 Berryhill, Bill $7,800 $3,000 - $10,800

R-25 Berryhill, Tom $11,700 $3,000 - $14,700

D-78 Block, Marty - - - -

D-40 Blumenfeld, Bob - - - -

D-51 Bradord, Steven1 $4,900 $1,500 - $6,400

D-41 Brownley, Julia - - - -

D-15 Buchanan, Joan - - - -

D-28 Caballero, Anna - - $3,000 $3,000

D-58 Calderon, Charles $7,800 $2,000 $4,500 $14,300D-62 Carter, Wilmer Amina $3,900 $3,000 - $6,900

D-01 Chesbro, Wes - - - -

R-34 Conway, Connie $7,800 $3,000 - $10,800

R-65 Cook, Paul $3,900 $3,000 - $6,900

D-23 Coto, Joe - - - -

D-48 Davis, Mike - - $2,000 $2,000

D-50 De La Torre, Hector - - - -

D-45 de Len, Kevin - - - -

R-70 DeVore, Chuck - - - -

R-72 Duvall, Mike2 $3,900 $1,500 - $5,400

D-49 Eng, Mike - - $1,500 $1,500

D-07 Evans, Noreen - - - -

D-42 Feuer, Mike - - - -

R-75 Fletcher, Nathan $7,800 $3,900 - $11,700

D-22 Fong, Paul - - - -

D-39 Fuentes, Felipe $3,900 - $1,500 $5,400

R-32 Fuller, Jean $3,900 $3,000 - $6,900

D-55 Furutani, Warren - - - -

R-04 Gaines, Ted $11,700 $3,000 - $14,700

D-17 Galgiani, Cathleen $7,800 $1,500 - $9,300

R-74 Garrick, Martin $7,800 $7,800 - $15,600

D-43 Gatto, Mike3 - - - -

R-30 Gilmore, Danny $3,900 $1,500 - $5,400R-60 Hagman, Curt $7,800 $3,500 - $11,300

D-52 Hall, Isadore $3,900 $3,900 - $7,800

1 Steven Bradford won a special election for Assembly District 51 and was sworn into ofce on September 10, 2009. | 2 Mike Duvall resigned from the Assembly on September 9, 2009. | 3 Mike Gatto won a special election forAssembly District 43 and was sworn into ofce on June 10, 2010.


11/26

(Continued

Table 1: Contributions to Assembly Members rom Tobacco Interests


Party/




Company)



R-73 Harkey, Diane $7,800 $3,000 - $10,800

D-18 Hayashi, Mary - - - -

D-57 Hernandez, Ed - - - -D-19 Hill, Jerry - - - -

D-10 Huber, Alyson - - - -

D-06 Human, Jared - - - -

R-66 Jeries, Kevin $3,900 $3,900 - $7,800

D-09 Jones, Dave - - - -

R-36 Knight, Steve $7,800 $3,000 - $10,800

D-43 Krekorian, Paul4 - - - -

D-53 Lieu, Ted - - - -

R-03 Logue, Dan $7,800 $4,000 - $11,800

D-54 Lowenthal, Bonnie - - - -

D-12 Ma, Fiona - - - -

D-56 Mendoza, Tony - - - -R-71 Miller, Jeff $3,900 $4,000 - $7,900

D-27 Monning, William - - - -

D-35 Nava, Pedro - - - -

R-64 Nestande, Brian $3,900 $3,900 $1,000 $8,800

R-05 Niello, Roger - - - -

R-02 Nielsen, Jim $7,800 $3,000 - $10,800

R-72 Norby, Chris5 $3,900 $1,500 $1,500 $6,900

D-46 Perez, John $7,800 - - $7,800

D-80 Perez, V. Manuel - - $1,000 $1,000

D-44 Portantino, Anthony - - - -

D-21 Ruskin, Ira - - - -

D-79 Salas, Mary - - - -

D-76 Saldaa, Lori - - - -

R-67 Silva, Jim $7,800 $3,000 - $10,800

D-14 Skinner, Nancy - - - -

R-38 Smyth, Cameron $7,800 $3,900 - $11,700

D-69 Solorio, Jose $7,800 - - $7,800

R-37 Strickland, Audra - - - -

D-16 Swanson, Sandre - $3,000 $2,000 $5,000

D-11 Torlakson, Tom - - - -

D-61 Torres, Norma - - - -

D-20 Torrico, Alberto - - - -

R-68 Tran, Van - $2,000 - $2,000R-29 Villines, Michael $6,500 $2,000 - $8,500

D-08 Yamada, Mariko - - - -

TOTALS $202,500 $92,800 $19,500 $314,800

4 Paul Krekorian resigned from the Assembly on January 5, 2010 after being elected to the Los Angeles City Council. | 5 Chris Norby won a special election for Assembly District 72 and was sworn into ofce on January 29,2010.


12/26

y

g

g

g

8

Table 2: Contributions to State Senators rom Tobacco Interests


Party/

District Senator Philip Morris USA Inc.



Company)



R-04 Aanestad, Sam - - - -

D-13 Alquist, Elaine - - - -

R-18 Ashburn, Roy $5,000 $3,500 - $8,500R-37 Benoit, John1 $3,900 $2,000 - $5,900

R-15 Blakeslee, Sam2 - - - -

D-30 Calderon, Ronald - $4,000 - $4,000

D-22 Cedillo, Gil - - - -

R-14 Cogdill, Dave - $1,000 - $1,000

D-10 Corbett, Ellen - - - -

D-34 Correa, Lou - $5,000 - $5,000

R-01 Cox, Dave3 - $2,000 - $2,000

R-12 Denham, Je $5,000 $3,500 - $8,500

D-07 DeSaulnier, Mark - - - -

D-40 Ducheny, Denise Moreno - - - -R-31 Dutton, Bob $3,900 $1,500 - $5,400

R-37 Emmerson, Bill4 $11,700 $8,400 $1,000 $21,100

D-16 Florez, Dean - - - -

D-09 Hancock, Loni - - - -

R-35 Harman, Tom - $4,500 - $4,500

R-36 Hollingsworth, Dennis $8,900 $2,000 - $10,900

R-29 Hu, Bob $7,800 $3,600 - $11,400

D-39 Kehoe, Christine - - - -

D-03 Leno, Mark - - - -

D-21 Liu, Carol - - - -

D-27 Lowenthal, Alan - - - -D-32 Negrete McLeod, Gloria - - $2,000 $2,000

D-28 Oropeza, Jenny5 - - - -

D-20 Padilla, Alex - - - -

D-23 Pavley, Fran - - - -

D-26 Price, Curren Jr.6 $7,800 $4,000 - $11,800

D-24 Romero, Gloria - - - -

R-17 Runner, George $9,700 $4,000 $1,000 $14,700

D-11 Simitian, Joe - - - -

D-06 Steinberg, Darrell - - - -

R-19 Strickland, Tony $3,900 $5,500 - $9,400

R-33 Walters, Mimi $7,800 $4,000 - $11,800

D-02 Wiggins, Patricia - - - -

D-05 Wolk, Lois - - $2,000 $2,000

D-25 Wright, Rod $7,800 $8,900 - $16,700

R-38 Wyland, Mark $3,900 $1,900 - $5,800

D-08 Yee, Leland - - - -

TOTALS $87,100 $69,300 $6,000 $162,400

1 John Benoit resigned from the Senate on November 30, 2009 after being appointed to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. | 2 Sam Blakeslee was sworn into the Senate on August 23, 2010, previously serving in theAssembly during this election cycle.| 3 Dave Cox passed away on July 13, 2010. | 4 Bill Emmerson sworn into the Senate on June 9, 2010, previously serving in the Assembly during this election cycle. | 5 Jenny Oropeza passedaway on October 20, 2010.| 6 Curren Price was sworn into the Senate on June 8, 2009, previously serving in the Assembly during this election cycle. |


13/26

Table 3: Contributions to New Members o the Legislature rom Tobacco Interests


Party/




Company)



R-33 Achadjian, K.H. Katcho - - - -

D-28 Alejo, Luis - - - -

D-07 Allen, Michael - - - -

D-76 Atkins, Toni - - - -

D-11 Bonilla, Susan - - - -

D-53 Butler, Betsy - - - -

D-23 Campos, Nora - - - -

D-09 Dickinson, Roger - - - -

R-59 Donnelly, Tim $3,900 - - $3,900

D-21 Gordon, Rich - - $2,250 $2,250

R-37 Gorell, Je $7,800 - $1,000 $8,800

R-32 Grove, Shannon $3,900 - - $3,900

R-29 Halderman, Linda - - - -

D-57 Hernandez, Roger - - - -

D-79 Hueso, Ben - - - -

R-77 Jones, Brian $3,900 - - $3,900

D-50 Lara, Ricardo - - - -

R-68 Mansoor, Allan $3,900 - - $3,900

D-47 Mitchell, Holly - - - -

R-63 Morell, Mike $3,900 - - $3,900

R-25 Olsen, Kristin $3,900 - - $3,900D-05 Pan, Richard - - - -

D-31 Perea, Henry - - - -

R-30 Valadao, David $3,900 $3,900 - $7,800

R-70 Wagner, Donald $3,900 - - $3,900

D-20 Wieckowski, Bob - - - -

D-35 Williams, Das - - - -

Senator

R-12 Cannella, Anthony $3,900 $6,400 - $10,300

R-04 La Malfa, Doug $3,900 $2,500 - $6,400

D-16 Rubio, Michael - - - -

D-40 Vargas, Juan - - - -

TOTALS $46,800 $12,800 $3,250 $62,850


14/26


15/26

Graph 2: Number o Legislators and Candidates Who Accepted Contributions by Tobacco Interests

(January 1, 2009 - December 31, 2010)

Graph 3: Average Contribution Amount to Each Legislator or Candidate by Tobacco Interests


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Philip Morris USA Inc. Reynolds American Inc. California DistributorsAssociation PAC

NumberofLegislator

s/Candidates

Tobacco Interest

Tobacco Interest

ContributionPerLegislator/Candidate

0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

Philip Morris USA Inc. Reynolds American Inc. California DistributorsAssociation PAC


16/2612

y

g

g

g

Contributions to Constitutional Ofcers

Constitutional ofces include statewide ofces and theBoard of Equalization members. While not being able tovote on tobacco-related legislation as state legislatorscan, these elected ofcials inuence laws and governmentactions related to the tobacco industry and tobacco control.For example, the Governor has the opportunity to sign orveto all bills passed by the legislature, the State Board of

Equalization oversees the administration of cigarette andtobacco products taxes and tobacco licensing statutesand the Controller and Treasurer are members of the PublicEmployee Retirement System Board. All of these ofceswere up for election in the November 2010 general election.

Table 5 shows the campaign contributions from tobaccointerests to constitutional ofcers. The table includes alconstitutional ofcers who served during the 2009-2010election cycle, new constitutional ofcers who were electedin November 2010 and candidates for constitutional ofceswho were not elected but did accept campaign contributionsfrom tobacco interests. New constitutional ofcers who

were elected but appear in other tables are InsuranceCommissioner Dave Jones (Table 1), Superintendent ofPublic Instruction Tom Torlakson (Table 1) and Board ofEqualization District 2 Member George Runner (Table 2)

A total of four constitutional ofcers and one candidate foconstitutional ofce, including both major candidates foGovernor in the November 2010 election, accepted tobaccointerests campaign contributions.

Statewide Ofce Name o Ofcial

Philip Morris

USA Inc.

Reynolds American

Inc. (R.J. Reynolds

Tobacco Company)

Caliornia

Distributors


Governor Schwarzenegger, Arnold - - - -

Governor/Attorney General (elected

Governor 2010)Brown, Jerry $2,500 - - $2,500

Governor (candidate in 2010 election) Whitman, Meg $25,900 - - $25,900

Lieutenant Governor Garamendi, John1 - - - -

Lieutenant Governor Maldonado, Abel2

- - $1,500 $1,500Lieutenant Governor (elected 2010) Newsom, Gavin - - - -

Secretary o State Bowen, Debra - - - -

Controller Chiang, John - - - -

Treasurer Lockyer, Bill - - - -

Attorney General (elected 2010) Harris, Kamala - - - -

Superintendent o Public Instruction OConnell, Jack - - - -

Insurance Commissioner Poizner, Steve - - - -

Board of Equalization District 1 Yee, Betty - - - -

Board of Equalization District 2 Leonard, Bill3 - - - -

Board of Equalizat ion District 2 Alby, Barbara4 - - $1,000 $1,000

Board of Equalization District 3 Steel, Michelle $6,500 - $1,500 $8,000

Board of Equalization District 4 Chu, Judy5 - - - -

Board of Equalization District 4 Horton, Jerome6 - - - -

TOTALS $34,900 $0 $4,000 $38,900

Table 5: Contributions to Constitutional Ofcers and Candidates rom Tobacco Interests


1 John Garamendi resigned as Lieutenant Governor on November 5, 2009 after being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. | 2Abel Maldonado was sworn in as Lieutenant Governor on April 27, 2010, previously servingin the Senate during this election cycle. | 3 Bill Leonard resigned from the Board of Equalization on March 9, 2010 after being appointed Secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency. | 4 Barbara Alby was swornin to the Board of Equalization on March 9, 2010. | 5 Judy Chu resigned from the Board of Equalization in July 2009 after being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. | 6 Jerome Horton was sworn into the Board ofEqualization on October 5, 2009.


17/26

Contributions to Political Committees

Table 6 shows campaign contributions made topolitical committees from tobacco interests duringthe 2009-2010 election cycle. Contributions topolitical committees total more than $5.9 million andaccount for more than 90 percent of all the campaigncontributions made by tobacco interests duringthis election cycle. There are no limits on campaign

contributions to political committees and tobaccointerests made contributions to 20 committeesincluding committees that work to elect Republicancandidates, elect Democratic candidates and electpro-business candidates.

The majority of the campaign contributions to politicalcommittees during this election cycle were related toProposition 25 and Proposition 26 on the November2010 ballot. Both of the ballot measures werepassed by the voters. Proposition 25 changed thevote requirement for a state budget from two-thirdsvote to a simple majority. Proposition 26 reclassiesmany types of fees as taxes. All local taxes must beapproved by two-thirds of the voters as opposed toa simple majority of the local governing body. Threeof the political committees which received campaigncontributions (Stop Hidden Taxes, California BusinessPAC and Small Business Action Committee PAC) wereall related to the No on Prop. 25 and Yes on Prop. 26campaigns. Philip Morris USA Inc. contributed $3.85million to these three committees.

The names of political committees do not alwaysmake it clear what types of candidates and issues

that committee supports or opposes. To provide aclearer picture about what type of committees areaccepting contributions from tobacco companies,some background information about what eachcommittee primarily spends its funds on is providedbelow.

Stop Hidden Taxes No on 25/Yes on 26 Usesfunds to oppose passage of Proposition 25 andsupport passage of Proposition 26 in the November2010 general election

California Business PAC, A Committee Opposed to

Proposition 25 and in Support of Proposition 13, 26 Uses funds to support pro-business campaigns.Note: The name for the California Business PAC wasupdated in 2010 to reect the committees positionsand efforts on Prop. 25 and Prop. 26 (Prop. 13 refersto the ballot measure passed in 1978 that requires a2/3 vote for tax increases)

California Republican Party Uses funds to getRepublican candidates elected

Budget Reform Now - Yes on 1A Through 1F Usesfunds to support campaigns for Propositions 1A,1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 1F

Small Business Action Committee PAC Usesfunds to contribute to the Stop Hidden Taxes Noon 25/Yes on 26 committee

JOBSPAC Uses funds to support pro-businesscandidates

Californians for Voter Turnout, Education andRegistration Uses funds for voter registration

California Vote Project Uses funds for voterregistration

Alliance for Californias Tomorrow Uses funds tosupport pro-business candidates

The Diversity PAC Uses funds to contribute tospecic campaigns, formerly called Latino PAC

Voting for a New California Uses funds to supportspecic campaigns

Building Americas Future, John A. Perez BallotMeasure Committee Uses funds for local ballotmeasures

Protect Jobs, the Economy and Education Usesfunds to support specic campaigns

Committee for Community Values Uses funds tosupport specic candidates

Asian American Small Business PAC Uses fundsto support candidates who will be advocates for

Asian American small business owners

Vote Matters Uses funds to support speciccandidates

Neighborhood Market Association PAC Usesfunds to monitor and lobby on issues relevant toindependent retailers in the food and beverage

industry

Los Angeles County Democratic PartyState Candidate Committee Uses fundsto get Democratic candidates in Los AngelesCounty elected

California Democratic Party Uses funds to getDemocratic candidates elected

ChamberPAC, Small Contributor Committee Usesfunds to support pro-business candidates


18/2614

y

g

g

g

Committee Name Philip Morris USA Inc.

Reynolds American

Inc. (R.J. Reynolds

Tobacco Company)

Caliornia

Distributors


Stop Hidden Taxes - No on 25/Yes on 26 $1,750,000 - - $1,750,000

California Business PAC, A CommitteeOpposed to Proposition 25 and in Support o

Proposition 13, 26

$1,600,000 - - $1,600,000

Caliornia Republican Party $644,490 $72,500 - $716,990

Budget Reform Now - Yes on 1A Through 1F $500,000 $125,000 - $625,000

Small Business Action Committee PAC $500,000 - - $500,000

JOBSPAC $399,650 - - $399,650

Caliornians or Voter Turnout, Education

and Registration$90,000 - - $90,000

California Vote Project $45,000 - -$45,000

Alliance for Californias Tomorrow $40,000 - - $40,000

The Diversity PAC $25,000 - $2,931 $27,931

Voting for a New California $25,000 - - $25,000

Building Americas Future, John A. Perez

Ballot Measure Committee$20,000 - - $20,000

Protect Jobs, the Economy and Education $15,826 - - $15,826

Committee or Community Values $10,000 - - $10,000

Asian American Small Business PAC $10,000 - - $10,000Vote Matters $10,000 - - $10,000

Neighborhood Market Association PAC $8,000 - - $8,000

Los Angeles County Democratic Party State

Candidate Committee$5,000 - - $5,000

Caliornia Democratic Party - - $2,000 $2,000

ChamberPAC, Small Contributor Committee - $400 - $400

TOTALS $5,697,966 $197,900 $4,931 $5,900,797

Table 6: Contributions to Political Committees rom Tobacco Interests



19/26

Historical Campaign Contributions

For the past ve election cycles, tobacco interests have madeat least $1.8 million in campaign contributions in each cycleto help elect candidates and inuence voters on tobacco-related ballot measures. From 2001 through 2010 tobaccointerests have spent more than $79.8 million on campaigncontributions. Table 7 and Graph 4 show this historicalspending on campaign contributions for the last decade.

In the 2009-2010 election cycle, tobacco interestsincreased their contributions by more than $4.5 million ovethe 2007-2008 election cycle. The largest amount spent inone election cycle was in the 2005-2006 election cycledue to the signicant amount of money tobacco interestsspent on the opposition campaign to Proposition 86, whichwould have increased the state tobacco tax by $2.60/pack

Table 7: Historical Contributions rom Tobacco Interests


Graph 4: Total Campaign Contributions by Tobacco Interests (January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2010)

COMPANY 2001-2002 2003-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010 Totals

Phillip Morris USA Inc.1 $1,081,751 $2,239,254 $37,703,162 $1,567,100 $6,119,012 $48,710,279

Reynolds American Inc. (R.J.

Reynolds Tobacco Company)$316,250 $202,600 $25,732,898 $173,450 $395,400 $26,820,598

UST Inc. (US SmokelessTobacco Company)2 $76,792 $327,768 $3,097,642 $198,944 - $3,701,146

Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corporation3$270,000 $24,500 - - - $294,500


Association PAC$57,250 $39,400 $34,400 $26,100 $40,681 $197,831

Lorillard Tobacco Company $40,500 $61,500 $15,000 - - $117,000

TOTALS $1,842,543 $2,895,022 $66,583,102 $1,965,594 $6,555,093 $79,841,354

1 Kraft and Philip Morris led a joint report under the name Altria Group, Inc.s Afliates (Philip Morris USA Inc. and Kraft Foods Global, Inc.) until 2007. The campaign nance gures in threport contain all Altria Group contributions during that time. | 2 U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company les under the name UST Inc., which also includes UST Public Affairs. The campaignance gures in this report contain all UST Inc. contributions. US Smokeless Tobacco Company was acquired by Altria in January 2009. | 3 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporatiomerged with RJ Reynolds in August 2004.

2 001 -20 02 2 003-200 4 200 5-2 006 200 7-2 008 2009 -20 10

TotalCamp

aignContributions

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

Election Cycle

2001

-2002

2003

-2004

2005

-2006

2007

-2008

2009

-2010

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

Philip Morris USA Inc.


Reynolds Tobacco Company)

UST Inc. (US Smokeless

Tobacco Company

Brown & Williamson

Tobacco Company


Association PAC

Lorillard Tobacco Company


20/26

y

g

g

g

Lobbying Expenditures and Legislation Lobbied

16

Table 8 contains information about the amount of moneyspent by tobacco interests to lobby the legislature and stateagencies, along with a full list of bills that were lobbied, fromJanuary 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. This tablebreaks down the lobbying gures by reporting quarter. Thereare four quarters (January through March, etc.) in each year,making eight quarters for the two-year period. Graph 5 shows

what percent of these total lobbying expenditures were spentby each tobacco interest.

In these two years, the four tobacco interests spent more than$2.75 million to lobby a total of 16 different bills. These includedbills to increase the tobacco tax, make changes to the statetobacco retailer license law and regulate the sale of electroniccigarettes. The tobacco interests also lobbied the Board ofEqualization on several issues, including the wholesale costof tobacco products and other tobacco products tax issues.

Philip Morris USA Inc. spent just over $750,000 on lobbyingin the second quarter of 2009 (April through June), more than$200,000 more than the company has spent in any othequarter over the last 20 years on lobbying. It was duringthese three months that both the Senate and the Assemblyheld votes on budget legislation that included a tobacco taxincrease. Also, during this time period, Philip Morris USA Inc

sent direct mail to voters in several legislative districts to targetlegislators who had voted for an increase in the tobacco tax.The $1.91 million spent on lobbying by Philip Morris USAInc. in this two-year period is the second highest total for thecompany in the last 20 years. It only trails the total from the1997-1998 period when Philip Morris USA Inc. spent $1.96million and smokefree bars legislation was being consideredby the legislature.

Table 8: Lobbying Expenditures and Legislation Lobbied by Tobacco Interests



21/26

(Continued



Caliornia Distributors Association1

Quarter Amount Spent Bills/Issues Lobbied

1st Quarter 2009 $13,040.00

AB 89 (Torlakson) Increasing the Tax on CigarettesAB 689 (Calderon) Changing the Denition of a Tobacco ProductSB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco TaxSB 601 (Padilla) Restricting Eligibility for State Tobacco Retailer LicenseSB 602 (Padilla) Restricting State Tobacco Retailer Licenses

SB 603 (Padilla) Creating Annual Fee for State Tobacco Retailer LicenseBoard of Equalization - Excise Tax Issues

2nd Quarter 2009 $13,301.60

AB 689 (Calderon) Changing the Denition of a Tobacco ProductSB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco TaxSB 601 (Padilla) Restricting Eligibility for State Tobacco Retailer LicenseSB 602 (Padilla) Restricting State Tobacco Retailer LicensesSB 603 (Padilla) Creating Annual Fee for State Tobacco Retailer License

3rd Quarter 2009 $13,040.00

SB 76 (Budget Committee) Budget, Tobacco Tax IncreaseSB 400 (Corbett) Authorizing Enforcement Action Against Sales of E-CigarettesSB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco TaxSB 602 (Padilla) Restricting State Tobacco Retailer LicensesSB 603 (Padilla) Creating Annual Fee for State Tobacco Retailer License

4th Quarter 2009 $13,040.00 SB 400 (Corbett) Authorizing Enforcement Action Against Sales of E-Cigarettes

1st Quarter 2010 $13,040.00 AB 2733 (Ruskin) Making Changes to State Tobacco Retailer Licensing Law SB 882 (Corbett) Restricting Sales of E-Cigarettes

2nd Quarter 2010 $13,040.00

AB 2496 (Nava) Reducing Evasion of MSA Payments and Cigarette Tax Payments AB 2733 (Ruskin) Making Changes to State Tobacco Retailer Licensing Law AB 2757 (Bradford) Restricting the Sale of Blunt Wraps SB 603 (Padilla) Creating Annual Fee for State Tobacco Retailer License

3rd Quarter 2010 $13,680.00

AB 2496 (Nava) Reducing Evasion of MSA Payments and Cigarette Tax Payments AB 2733 (Ruskin) Making Changes to State Tobacco Retailer Licensing Law SB 603 (Padilla) Creating Annual Fee for State Tobacco Retailer LicenseBoard of Equalization - Other Tobacco Products Tax Issues

4th Quarter 2010 $13,040.00 No bills listed this quarter

TOTAL $105,221.601 The California Distributors Association lobbies on other issues besides tobacco issues. The table reects total amount of money spent on lobbying but only lists the tobacco-related bi

Reynolds American Inc. (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company)


1st Quarter 2009 $56,697.73AB 89 (Torlakson) Increasing the Tax on Cigarettes SB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco Tax

2nd Quarter 2009 $62,323.86

AB 89 (Torlakson) Increasing the Tax on Cigarettes ACA 22 (Torlakson) Increasing the Tax on CigarettesSB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco TaxSB 601 (Padilla) Restricting Eligibility for State Tobacco Retailer LicenseSB 602 (Padilla) Restricting State Tobacco Retailer Licenses

3rd Quarter 2009 $67,204.15 SB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco Tax


1st Quarter 2010 $59,021.67AB 89 (Torlakson) Increasing the Tax on Cigarettes AB 2496 (Nava) Reducing Evasion of MSA Payments and Cigarette Tax Payments SB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco Tax

2nd Quarter 2010 $65,961.75AB 89 (Torlakson) Increasing the Tax on Cigarettes AB 2757 (Bradford) Restricting the Sale of Blunt Wraps SB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco Tax

3rd Quarter 2010 $83,336.96AB 89 (Torlakson) Increasing the Tax on Cigarettes AB 2757 (Bradford) Restricting the Sale of Blunt Wraps SB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco Tax


TOTAL $546,434.23


22/2618

y

g

g

g

(Continued

UST Public Aairs, Inc. (U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company)2


1st Quarter 2009 $70,500.00AB 89 (Torlakson) Increasing the Tax on CigarettesSB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco Tax

2nd Quarter 2009 $25,500.00

AB 89 (Torlakson) Increasing the Tax on CigarettesACA 22 (Torlakson) Increasing the Tax on CigarettesSB 600 (Padilla) Increasing the State Tobacco TaxSB 601 (Padilla) Restricting Eligibility for State Tobacco Retailer LicenseSB 602 (Padilla) Restricting State Tobacco Retailer LicensesSB 603 (Padilla) Creating Annual Fee for State Tobacco Retailer License

3rd Quarter 2009 $70,500.00 Board of Equalization - Tax ramications of SB 601 (Padilla) and SB 603 (Padilla)

4th Quarter 2009 $25,500.00 Board of Equalization - Wholesale tobacco cost

TOTAL $192,000.00

2 UST Public Affairs terminated lobbying on December 31, 2009.



Graph 5: Percent o Total Lobbying Expenditures by Tobacco Interests


Altria Client Services Inc. and its Affiliates (Philip Morris USA Inc.)

Reynolds American Inc. (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company)

UST Public Affairs, Inc. (U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company)

California Distributors Association

4%

69%20%

7%

$2.76 Million TotalLobbying Expenditures


23/26

Historical Lobbying Expenditures

Table 9 and Graph 6 show the amount of money spent onlobbying by tobacco interests over the past decade, fromJanuary 1, 2001 through December 31, 2010.Tobacco interests have spent more than $2.1 million ineach two-year period.

In total, tobacco interests have spent more than $13.6million in the past ten years. Despite there being fewertobacco companies that lobby the legislature, the overalllobbying expenditures have remained steady becausePhilip Morris USA Inc. has increased its spending onlobbying.

Graph 6: Total Lobbying Expenditures by Tobacco Interests (January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2010)

Table 9: Historical Lobbying Expenditures o Tobacco Interests(January 1, 2001 December 31, 2010)

Company 2001-2002 2003-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010 Totals

Altria Client Services Inc. and itsAfliates (Phillip Morris USA Inc.)

$799,693 $1,070,237 $884,694 $1,680,953 $1,911,569 $6,347,146

Reynolds American Inc. (R.J.Reynolds Tobacco Company)

$615,058 $489,916 $598,507 $469,646 $546,434 $2,719,560

UST Public Affairs, Inc. (USSmokeless Tobacco Company)1

$310,073 $465,446 $391,137 $403,564 $192,000 $1,762,220

Lorillard Tobacco Company2 $493,975 $381,657 $187,202 - - $1,062,834

Brown & Williamson TobaccoCorporation3

$587,781 $304,239 - - - $892,020

California Distributors Association $87,537 $95,378 $99,324 $104,353 $105,222 $491,814

Smokeless Tobacco Council, Inc.4 $263,817 $67,500 - - - $331,317

TOTALS $3,157,934 $2,874,372 $2,160,864 $2,658,516 $2,755,225 $13,606,911

1 US Smokeless Tobacco Company was acquired by Altria in January 2009. UST Public Affairs, Inc. terminated lobbying in December 2009. |2 Lorillard Tobacco Company terminatedlobbying in December 2005. | 3 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation merged with RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company in August 2004. | 4 Smokeless Tobacco Council, Inc. terminatedlobbying in December 2003.

0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

2001-2002 2003-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010

Election Cycle

TotalLobbying

Expenditures

Altria Client Services Inc.

and its Afliates (Phillip

Morris USA Inc.)


Reynolds Tobacco Company)

UST Inc. (US Smokeless

Tobacco Company

Lorillard Tobacco Company

Brown & Williamson

Tobacco Company


Association PAC

Smokless Tobacco

Council, Inc.


24/2620

y

g

g

g

Conclusion

Tobacco Money in California Politics demonstrates thattobacco interests will consistently and aggressivelyspend millions of dollars to impact public policy inCalifornia and can access vast nancial resources asneeded for policy efforts that will have a signicantimpact on their industry. Over the past decade(2001-2010), tobacco interests have spent nearly

$100 million to inuence public policy in California.In the 2009-2010 election cycle, overall spending bytobacco interests increased from the previous electioncycle due to ballot measures and legislation relatedto tobacco taxes and fees on the tobacco industry.In previous election cycles, the highest amount ofspending by tobacco interests has always coincidedwith tobacco tax ballot measures (Proposition 99in 1988, Proposition 10 in 1998 and Proposition 86in 2006).

Among all special interests in California, tobaccocompanies rank near the top in total spending oncampaign contributions and lobbying. A 2010 reportby the California Fair Political Practices Commissionexamined spending by all special interests in Californiaincluding labor unions, business associations, Indiantribes and corporations between January 1, 2000 andDecember 31, 2009. Out of all these special interests,Philip Morris USA Inc. ranked number nine in totalspending on lobbying and contributions during that

ten-year period. Only three of those ranked ahead ofPhilip Morris USA Inc. were corporations (Pacic Gas& Electric Company, Chevron Corporation and AT&TInc.). Reynolds American Inc. ranked number 20 intotal spending.1

Looking to the next election cycle, it is clear that the

tobacco companies are already gearing up for thenext ght against an increase in the state tobaccotax. During the 2009-2010 election cycle, PhilipMorris USA Inc. had an independent expenditureon their campaign contributions lings of nearly$39,000 for legal fees in opposition to the CaliforniaCancer Research Act while it was still in the signaturegathering stage. The California Cancer Research

Act is a ballot initiative that would increase the statetobacco tax by $1 per pack and allocate revenues tocancer research and tobacco control and prevention.The last time a tobacco tax increase initiative wason a statewide election (Proposition 86 in 2006) themajor tobacco companies (Philip Morris USA Inc.,Reynolds American Inc. and US Smokeless TobaccoCompany) spent more than $62 million to defeat theinitiative and they will likely fund a similar campaignin opposition to the California Cancer Research Act.This initiative has qualied for the next statewideelection and will be voted on sometime during the2011-2012 election cycle.

20

1 California Fair Political Practices Committee. Big Money Talks: The 15 Special Interests that Spent $1 Billion to Shape California Government.March 2010.


25/26

2011. California Department of Public Health. Funded under contract #09-11173.


26/26

y

g

g

g

Documents

Tobacco Money in California Politics (2009-2010 Election Cycle)